Central Banking and "Rogue" Nations

You've probably read about this before somewhere on ATS, but I don't think we've ever had a thread dedicated to this topic so that we could all put
our heads together and get to the bottom of this conspiracy, so that we can "deconstruct" the disinfo surrounding these recent conflicts in Libya,
Syria and other so called "rogue" nations and figure out the real reasons why these nations are being placed in the line of fire. There was a thread
posted the other day called Grim view of Syrian conflict, and in that thread is a
video showing the complete devastation of a city area in Syria. The once bustling city is completely deserted and the once standing buildings all
around are torn to shreds, it's looks like something out of an apocalypse movie.

First I watched it happen in Libya, I saw much of their nation bombed into smithereens by NATO and UN forces. When I watched that Syrian video
something inside of me snapped... I really just couldn't believe how the world I live in is so different to the world they are currently facing. I
fail to understand how can people do this stuff to each other... why are there not better ways of solving these problems? Why do people refuse to
acknowledge the fact that this is a billion times more "terror" than would have ever occurred had this western intervention been avoided... why can't
our western Governments just mind their own business? What the hell is wrong with us that we can consciously inflict this type of pain and suffering
on other human beings?

I note that today that thread with the video has only 4 flags and 4 replies and it is now dead... when clearly it should have hundreds of replies and
hundreds of flags, people should be furious that this is happening, they should be outraged in the same way we were apparently outraged when the
Syrian Government had a so called "crackdown" on its protestors (as if western nations have never hurt those who voice dissent towards the
Governments). Well I say it's high time we pay more attention to these atrocities, stop ignoring reality and filtering out the stuff which makes you
depressed and angry! People need to look the problem straight in the face, stop turning away and burying your head in the sand god damn it!!!

First, lets review some of the painstakingly obvious similarities between Libya and Syria shall we...

The last point is the one we are really interested in because it's the topic of this thread. I learnt early on that Libya had this type of state
controlled central bank and since that time I've strongly believed one of their main reasons for invading Libya was to establish a conformist
Rothschild type central bank. In the article below, they list many things which reminded me of Libya (such as how the Syrian Government provided free
education up to university level, free medical care and subsidized housing for all its people, etc)... but they also mention something else Syria had
in common with Libya: that Syria also had a similar type of central banking system. Pay careful attention to the following excerpt:

Most of the banks, including the Central Bank of Syria, Commercial Bank of Syria, Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Industrial Bank, Popular Credit
Bank and Real Estate Bank, are STATE owned, a system of banking, which is anathema to the Western model of debt finance, which is based on fractional
reserves and creates money out of nothing at interest.

The same applies (or did previously apply) for the Central Bank of Libya:

Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya
is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that
in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero
dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but
this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

The probability of this being a mere coincidence is looking lower and lower... but just how many nations have state controlled central banks which
issue currency in this way? You may be surprised to find out the number is surprisingly low... at present the number is in the range of 3 to 6
nations. The first piece of information I came across concerning this issue was found in this interesting thread posted near the start of this year
which received over 100 flags:

Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and
by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

Now this is getting very interesting in my opinion... is it a coincidence that many of these countries are treated as extremist/rogue nations, and is
it a coincidence we have been invading them one-by-one and establishing our stupid private western style central banks in all those who resist us?
Well I started to dig a little deeper, and I discovered that the U.S. is already implementing
sanctions aimed at shutting down Iran’s central bank... and I also stumbled across
the following eye-popping article:

Another provocative bit of data circulating on the net is a 2007 Democracy Now! interview of US Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about
ten days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why.
"I don't know!" was the response. "I guess they don't know what else to do!" Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries
in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks
of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in
Switzerland.

That's a pretty suspicious list of countries right? Yeah that's what I thought too... but I'm not so sure about Lebanon and Somalia, just because they
aren't a part of the 56 member banks doesn't necessarily mean they don't have non-conformist Rothschild Central Banks... does it? The first article
claimed there were only 3 countries remaining without that type of Central Bank system, however a very interesting
post by Canadianpride420 states there are actually 5:

There are currently 5 countries, not 3. They are Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Venezuala.

Venezuala payed off all debt to the IMF and world bank in 2007 under Chavez. They control their own bank now and now debt free. www.bloomberg.com...

Sudan still does not have a Rothschild controlled bank. South Sudan does yes, but Sudan does not.

But if we add Syria to that list (I don't think the Rebels have established a Rothschild Central Bank yet), the number would be 6... however, once
again I'm not so sure about Venezuela, just because they payed off their debt to the IMF and World Bank doesn't necessarily mean they have a
state-owned central bank. I made this thread so we can basically look deeper into this and build a solid list of countries who aren't part of the
globalist banking structure yet, which would indicate they are targets and could be attacked like Syria or Libya... but this is basically what it
looks like to me so far:

Very interesting thread and definitely goes in line with my last course in college from last semester in which we read Jacques Derrida's Rogue states.
It is a rather fascinating book that sheds light as to how we come to identify what is a rouge state and ultimately in a way he kind of shows that the
U.S. is a bit of one from the get go. I usually log onto ATS and hit recent posts to see what new things come up I'm sure if I saw it I'd give my tid
bits on the matter. Though I just find it funny that we almost always advocate for piece and negotiations before destroying; but what it really comes
down to is you have 24-48 hours to play ball with us or we destroy.

The sad thing about all this is this is just how much control they have over everything, I mean just by simply looking at the news story itself in one
of the links shows that it is an independent news agency rather than a main one. Though most of us know that the main one is owned and in a way
operated by a corporation which in a way has a tie with the banks so surely you won't hear about it. Just doesn't seem like a world people envision
anymore. The way we go on about peace, freedom, democracy in a way we have lost or are losing each and those other nations that we say are horrible
seem to have it in a way where it may not be ideal it is in a way a tad better than that which we have now. Though as long as you don't try and go
against the flow of things.

Thanks for a useful and informative thread. I've been trying to point some of these things out to people, and have been bumbling around pulling info
from here and there while they wait impatiently. It's hard to prove a point when you look scattered and disorganized....

Yah sorry about that, it's a bit of a weird word and my spell-check didn't pick it up because "rouge" is also apparently a word. I'm usually a great
speller but that word isn't one I use very often and it didn't look odd to me... anyway it's fixed now so I think we can focus on more important
things than the misspelling of one world. The amount of stars you got for that post and the speed at which you received them really shows what people
care about doesn't it...

Well that would seem to put Iceland in a similar situation as Venezuela, although Iceland hasn't paid off all their debt to the IMF yet... and as I
said I don't think that necessarily indicates they have changed to a state-owned central bank.

If it was a better banking model I may of even supported it, but if it was better then there would be no need for all the blood shed. Centralised
power does look to be the aim, if you control the cash flow, you control what people do. Unfortunately as the self determination is taken away from
the publics hands social cohesion does tend to fracture, Greece and the EU is a clear example. It is sad there is going to be a lot of pain through
unjustified debt obligations just so a few can do their special projects.

Excellent thread, CO. This clarifies a theory that has been floating around in my head for some time now. The US et al wouldn't invade a middle
Eastern country for the oil and the resulting revenue, it simply doesn't make economic sense. Strategy and the placement of military installations
close to countries they can't influence/control? Possibly.

However, when you draw attention to the central banking connection it starts to make some kind of frightening sense. What if some central bank (for
the sake of argument we'll give it an imaginary but realistic-sounding name, let's say 'Wrathchild'?) exerts influence over a powerful
country/countries and gives the order to invade all countries without a Wrathchild-controlled bank with all it's non-existent funny money. At the end
of the day, Mr Wrathchild gains more control over the world at no personal cost to himself. Lots of people got killed and huge amounts of
infrastructure were destroyed but he doesn't have to look at that so that's OK.

To the hoi polloi the illusion of national sovereignty is maintained and we feel either proud or guilty of the actions ordered by our supposedly
elected representatives, meanwhile the Wrathchild clan are secure in their covert dictatorship because we believe that our leaders decided to do what
they did.

To me this sounds more and more plausible every day. Is there a way out of this or do we just keep riding the tiger?

====
As an addendum, I'm just thinking out loud here, just so I can get it straight in my head. Money, to the little people like me, is currency. I can
exchange my time and effort for it and then exchange my money for goods and services to increase/maintain my comfort.

To the rich people it's a way of keeping score, ie how many millions/billions they manage to make per year/month/week. They still value it but they
see it in a completely different way.

But to the über-rich and terminally sociopathic (Mr and Mrs Wrathchild and all the little Wrathchilds) it is merely a means of control which is an
end in itself.

Yah sorry about that, it's a bit of a weird word and my spell-check didn't pick it up because "rouge" is also apparently a word. I'm
usually a great speller but that word isn't one I use very often and it didn't look odd to me... anyway it's fixed now so I think we can focus on
more important things than the misspelling of one world. The amount of stars you got for that post and the speed at which you received them really
shows what people care about doesn't it...

I get your point...but given the connotations of a word meaning Red, it changes your central premise. Besides, I can be a spelling Nazi, I suppose.

Anyway, I can't help but notice that Cuba is embargoed by the US, and N. Korea and Iran may well be too. That could account for the state-run aspect
of their banks.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad you pointed that mistake out to me, because the title would have looked stupid if I hadn't of fixed it. I'm just saying
it's sad how people seem more concerned over the spelling of one word (not you) rather than the real substance of this thread... once again burying
their heads in the sand and getting side tracked with trivial things.

And remember the financial "collapse" had Iceland involved with the bad mortgage paper with the U.S. banks.

But the larger issue is the European Union.

Iceland applied to join the European Union on 16 July 2009. Negotiations formally began on 27 July 2010[1] and, despite Iceland already being
heavily integrated into the EU market, will face contentious issues on fisheries which could potentially derail an agreement.[2] After an agreement is
concluded, the accession treaty must be ratified by every EU state and be subject to a national referendum in Iceland.[3] Prior to application,
Iceland was already part of the EU's internal market and the Schengen Area. Accession of Iceland to the European Union

Iceland is moving rapidly in its quest to join the European Union but the contentious issue of fishing rights has yet to be tackled, top EU and
Icelandic officials said.

On Friday, the 27-nation EU and Iceland opened three more negotiation “chapters” on transport, social policy and financial control.

Nations applying for EU membership must negotiate 35 policy chapters with the 27-nation bloc, a process that can take many years to finish.

But Iceland has now opened 18 chapters with the EU, wrapping up 10 of those already in negotiations that began in June 2011. Reykjavik already fulfils
many EU policies thanks to its membership in the European Economic Area. Iceland takes quick steps towards EU membership

First at current time this is a great time to BUMP since NKorea is in play as so it seems.

My next inquiry is China, Russia and Japan? To be honest I am not even sure of all of the members of the EU are - I believe it is 25+. I am only a
meager prodigy of an entire education through the public school system and can tell you a lot about struggling in the great land of US. At least I had
a library card.

It would seem if the US has a FOB on it then that should answer most questions of whether they are rogue or fraternity.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.